Debates of March 7th, 1996

The Budget

[Jan Brown, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, despite the answer, the government has given seniors merely 33 cents more in spending power per day.

It has cut benefits to middle income seniors. It has frozen RRSP contribution limits. It is taxing seniors by forcing them to use their RRSPs at age 69 rather than 71. It has broken every promise to seniors while protecting MPs gold plated pension.

When will the government end its war on Canada's future seniors?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the hon. member's facts are simply not correct.

Let us look at what we did in the RRSP area. Up until yesterday's budget young people who are raising families or paying for schools were not able to put enough money into RRSPs for their savings. That is why the average is about $2,500 to $3,000 per year.

There was a limit of seven years that they could go back, which meant that when these young people became my age and their families were gone they would not be able to go back and make up for the time lost. We have given them that capability. This is very important so that young people can save for their retirement.

Unfortunately, the hon. member's facts are wrong. On the other hand, I have to say that her motivation is right and she must be very lonely over there.

Foreign Affairs

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

In the last few weeks China has taken a number of actions, including military exercises along the coast of the island of Taiwan, involving about 150,000 troops, all in an attempt to influence the outcome of the Taiwanese elections.

Given the need to maintain stability in this important economic region and Canada's act of international support of democratic processes, can the minister tell the House the government's position on these events and what it will do to ensure that peace will prevail in this region?

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member rightly knows there have been increasing tensions between the Government of China and the Government of Taiwan over the past several weeks.

Our position right along has been that the best way to resolve these tensions is through serious discussion, to adhere to the rules of law and to provide for any kind of international resolution in those disputes. The last thing we need is a heightening of tensions by the use of any kind of military force.

To that end, yesterday I spoke with the Chinese ambassador here to express Canada's concern about the missile testing and to press upon him that Canada would offer any good offices we could to help resolve the disputes or the tensions in a very peaceful and open conciliatory way.

The Budget

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.

The other day the Minister of Finance was reluctant to chastise Conrad Black for repudiating the Prime Minister's challenge to the private sector to create jobs. We noticed a similar reluctance in the budget.

Why in the budget, a budget which for the first time contained no job strategy, job creation predictions or anything like that, was there no attempt to implement policies which would actively discourage through the tax system or through other disincentives profitable corporations from casting off their employees?

Why was there nothing in the budget to meet the policy challenge the government enunciated with respect to challenging the private sector to create jobs and encouraging it to do so and discouraging it when it lays off people even though it is making profits.

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's premise is simply wrong. The main thrust of the budget was job creation.

The hon. member will recognize that there is a clear link between deficit reduction, interest rate reduction and job creation. That is exactly what we are doing. We have seen interest rates come down. We have seen the spread between our interest rates and American interest rates virtually disappear.

The budget had a major youth program both for summer jobs and for first entry jobs which the Minister of Human Resources Development will be speaking to. It had a major focus on the development of the new technology and the newer economy which the Minister of Industry will be speaking to. It had a major focus on trade, the kinds of things that really create jobs. This was a jobs budget.

Business Of The House

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to take the government House leader by surprise, but I would like to ask him what is on the legislative agenda for next week.

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I was thinking of asking you to extend question period by at least a half hour so the Minister of Finance could continue his outstanding answers. However, perhaps I should revert to the usual Thursday activity and therefore give the weekly business statement.

I want to give the House an outline of the business for not only the next week but for the week after as well. This afternoon the budget debate will continue. Tomorrow the House will consider Bill C-3 concerning labour relations jurisdiction for nuclear power plants.

On Monday there will be a debate on the renewal of the NORAD agreement.

Next Tuesday, Thursday and Friday shall be opposition days. Next Wednesday will be the second day of the budget debate. I expect the budget debate will be concluded on Monday and Tuesday, March 18 and 19. I also expect that the fourth and final opposition day in this period will be March 20.

The Late Randolph Harding

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to pay tribute to a former member of the House, Mr. Randolph Harding, the NDP member for Kootenay West from 1968 to 1974. Mr. Harding died earlier this week in his 82nd year.

Ran Harding was described to me by Lyle Kristiansen, another former member of the House who knew him well, as one of the most self-effacing, honest and truly nice persons one might encounter in political life.

It is not surprising therefore to observe that Mr. Harding served the public as an elected official for a combined total of some 60 years in municipal, provincial, federal and then municipal politics once again. I understand that in his seventies he was still serving as the mayor of Silverton, B.C.

Mr. Harding during his time in provincial politics was known as the ombudsman of the Kootenays, as the silvery tongued orator from Silverton, as one who fought the Columbia River treaty.

In this House he was the NDP environment critic at a time when concern for the environment was just beginning to grow. He was described by then energy minister Joe Greene as the MP most knowledgeable about the environment. Mr. Harding was here during the difficult days of the War Measures Act and was a staunch opponent of its use. He had seen the effects of that act on Japanese-Canadians in his riding and he wanted no part of it.

Randolph Harding, a school teacher by profession, served his country in time of war and in peace. He was first elected to the B.C. legislature while still in uniform.

To his wife, Francis, and to his family we express our condolences and invoke the well known commendation of which Mr. Harding was a fine example. Having fought the good fight, having run the race that was set before him, we can truly say well done, thou good and faithful servant.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Richelieu, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to join with my colleague from the NDP, and offer, on behalf of all the members of the Bloc Quebecois, our sympathy to the Harding family. I have not had the opportunity to know Mr. Harding personally nor to sit with him during my 12 years here, but as a member of the environment committee I was often reminded of his brilliant contributions. That was during the early days of the green battle, as it was called in the House of Commons.

I have also heard about the brilliant comments he made when the War Measures Act was introduced and how he ferociously fought for democratic action instead of military intervention. The people of Quebec are grateful to him for this.

Mr. Harding was an alderman for 20 years, an MLA from 1945 to 1966 in his native province of British-Columbia, and then a member of Parliament here, in Ottawa, between 1968 and 1974, where he served his province, his constituents as well as his party with great know-how and stood up for the social democratic principles his party abode by.

Today, the members of the Bloc Quebecois salute Mr. Harding's great contribution to our democracy and extend their most sincere condolences to his family.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Reform Party I rise to give our condolences and our sympathy to the Harding family in the loss of its husband, father, grandfather and great grandfather.

I did not know Mr. Harding personally but I was able to get some newspaper clippings and talk to some people who did know him well.

Mr. Harding served his community by spending over 30 years as a member of the Silverton municipal council. He served the province of B.C. as an MLA, first elected in 1945 and re-elected in 1949, 1952, 1953, 1956, 1960, 1963 and 1966.

He served his country in the Canadian army during the second world war and served further as a member of Parliament, winning the seat of Kootenay West in 1968 and 1972.

If I could quote a few of the tributes given to him from council recently when he retired as mayor last year. The mayor of New Denver said he was a great mentor in politics. George Cady, the chairman for the regional district of central Kootenay, said he set an example that was hard to follow. Bill King, former NDP cabinet minister and now B.C. hydro director, said everyone spoke of his high integrity.

These kinds of tributes seem to go on and on and fill pages in the local papers.

Obviously this man served the country and his community with pride. His family members can proud of his accomplishments in life but I know they will be sorrowful today.

I extend our sympathies to his wife of 47 years, Francis, their sons, their ten grandchildren and their five great grandchildren who I am sure grieve his loss today.

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Liberals in the House, I am pleased to join in the expressions of sympathy being conveyed today to the family of the late Randolph Harding.

I pay tribute to his exemplary career of public service. Not many people can say they had served as long as Randolph Harding in all three levels of government, the municipal government of the town of Silverton, the legislature of British Columbia and here in the House of Commons. Yet Ran Harding was able to serve in all three levels of government in a way that brought distinction and honour to himself and to his party.

Therefore, I am pleased to join in the tribute to the late Randolph Harding and to extend my condolences and those of my party to Mr. Harding's wife, children, family and many friends. I am sure he will be long remembered by all.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government; the amendment and the amendment to the amendment.

The Budget

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, before question period a member asked that if we had implemented the Reform's zero in three program, whether would we have zero today.

As I said in my speech, example in countries like New Zealand, provinces like Alberta and states like Massachusetts, Michigan and New Jersey show that exactly the opposite would have happened. We would be talking today about how to spend the surpluses today instead of witnessing the Liberals trying to introduce their new LST, the Liberal super tax.

As I explained in my speech, business has explained how to create jobs. We have to cut the spending, run surpluses and get taxes down so that there is more money in the pockets of consumers so that demand can be increased, which creates new jobs and investment. It has been proven to work all around the world. Cut spending, start running surpluses and the money will flow in through that method.

Surely the member can see that his way simply does not work. Two decades of deficit spending; if it worked we would all have three jobs each by now. Instead we have continuing 10 per cent unemployment.

[The Speaker]

Ordinarily it would be the Liberals' turn to have a speaker but I understand there has been agreement among the four speakers who have agreed to switch places. The members for St. John's West and York North who will share time will drop down one slot. It is my understanding that the members for Fraser Valley East and Delta will now be given the floor.

Is that agreeable to the two members?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to make a few comments on the budget today. I begin by quoting the famous Yogi Berra, who summed it all up when he said: "It is déja vu all over again".

I feel like I am having a déja vu experience here today talking about this budget. This is a budget that Canadians have already seen not once but many times before; the predictions of great things to come some distant time down the road. I remind the House that has been promised before and it does not give a lot of hope to Canadians who are looking for some kind of solution to our fiscal mess today.

Let me remind the House of a few things that went on before. When Mr. Trudeau took office in 1968 the total national debt was $17 billion. When he left it was $200 billion. Then Mr. Mulroney took the driver's seat and when he was finished with us the debt was $508 billion. Now the Liberals are at the wheel again and this year the debt is predicted to go to over $600 billion. Sometime in the next millennium we hope for a balanced budget, so say the Liberals, but then the debt will be possibly $650 billion.

It is all talk and we have heard that kind of talk before. As it happened before, a balanced budget may be a dream despite the good wishes or the good hopes and dreams the finance minister puts into his predictions. The deficit this year will be almost $33 billion. The Liberals hope to reduce it by $9 billion, half of which will be obtained through increased revenues from Canadian taxpayers.

A rise of just one percentage point in the interest rates adds $1.3 billion to the deficit. This year, who knows what will happen to the interest rates? Will they go up or down? Who would have

predicted a year ago that they would drop three points and save the bacon of the predictions of the minister in the last budget?

If there is the slightest hiccup in the U.S. economy, if there is a slight problem in the elections coming up in Russia, if there is a problem of world turmoil in Taiwan as was mentioned in question period, or in Israel, who knows? Interest rates could jump. If they jump by only a couple of percentage points, the predictions of this minister will go down the drain.

There has been just a small three point rise. If we go back to where we were a year ago, it would leave us once again with a $30 billion deficit. There would be panic among investors, among small business people and among people who are trying to plan for their future. It would cause drastic cuts in health care, in welfare, in pension plans, plans that all Canadians have a right to expect from the Canadian government. That is how dicey the situation is.

I want to talk for a moment about these interest payments on our national debt. The debt is the problem and the debt has not been addressed in this budget. Not only have the Liberals kept the deficit very much alive, they seem somehow to be proud of a deficit of $25 billion. We have added $100 billion to the national debt since this government took office.

The budget states that this year interest payments will be $48 billion. These payments have risen even faster than the debt. They have jumped by 30 per cent since the government took office. To put this into perspective, what could we do with the $48 billion this government seems thrilled to be able to spend on the interest on the debt?

We could build 25 high speed rail links every year in Canada for that much money. We could pay the entire budgets of B.C., Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, the Yukon and the Northwest Territories combined. We could give them a complete tax holiday, tell them all to take a vacation, that all of the expenses would be looked after just on the interest on the national debt. We could give a cash present every single year of $1,250 to every man, woman and child in Canada with that much money.

Imagine, a person with three or four children could go home and say: "It is tax time. The government gave me $8,000. Thank you". But it will not happen. That dream will not happen because this government seems to be satisfied to run deficits, to build the national debt and to pay 35 cents out of every dollar collected in servicing that national debt.

The Canadian Chamber of Commerce made a prebudget presentation to the finance committee and said: "The massive debt is choking our economy and hampering our international competitiveness". It is not talking about long term projections. It is not talking about what may or may not happen to the interest rates. It is not talking about the wish list of this Liberal finance minister and the people who put out the budget. It is talking about the debt.

This is not pie in the sky stuff for fabrication. It is the debt. While the finance minister seems thrilled that we will only have a $25 billion or $30 billion deficit next year, the debt has climbed by $110 billion under his management. He seems to be thrilled with this.

As the Chamber of Commerce says, the debt is choking our economy, it is hampering our international competitiveness and it is costing us jobs, jobs, jobs. Until the government side of the House understands that concept, we are in a long tunnel with very few dim lights spaced out along the way. The light we will see at the far end will be an incoming train, which will be a fiscal disaster if this kind of policy continues.

In the plan Reform has offered this would have been the last year with a deficit. Imagine. All of the pain would have been over. All of the cuts would have been over. All of the health care funding would have been restored and firm because there would have been no more deficit if the government would have followed our advice. Next year we would have started to pay down our debt. Next year we would have been able to look forward to tax relief. We would have wondered what to do with the extra money. However, that will not happen. We are looking at continuing cuts and increased tax burdens far into the future.

The few good ideas that are in the budget-and I am happy to give the government credit for them-were stolen completely from the Reform Party's zero in three plan. There are no new major tax increases, which is good. We applaud the government for that, although tax cuts would have been better. The Liberals have raised taxes 22 times since they have taken office. Thankfully there are no new tax increases in this budget, but there were certainly plenty in the past.

I will give the government credit that it has continued to hold the line on taxing the resource allowance, which is an area of my critic portfolio. I badgered the government in question period about it. I have tried to get confirmation on it and I am pleased to see that at least the taxes have not gone up on the resource allowance.

However, it continues to fund government babies such as AECL, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the CBC, subsidies to business and of course the MP pension plan, among other things.

The rise in tax deductibility for charitable donations is something with which I agree. It is a good move. Again, if we look at the taxpayers' budget, which is the budget we tabled a year ago, we will see that we said at that time: Give a break to charitable organizations. Allow them to come in and fill some of the void that will be there when some of the cutbacks happen in government. Allow the charitable organizations to look after that. They will do that if they are given a chance. I am pleased to see the charitable

donation idea. It was stolen from our budget but I am happy about it. If the government wants to steal more, I encourage it to do that.

When can Canadians hope for a rise in their standard of living, lower taxes and more job creation with this budget? Certainly not in this century. Since January of this year 200,000 full time jobs have been lost. We heard about that in question period today. Only tax relief, lower payroll deductions and a light at the end of the tax tunnel will bring those jobs back. The finance minister has put off his political pain and in the meantime he has sacrificed jobs for Canadians.

This budget is like an anaesthetic without an operation. It is like going to the dentist, getting ready, going through the fear, getting the needles and then the dentist saying: "We have done all of that, but I am sorry, we are not going to drill today. It would be too unpleasant. I would like you to come back next year and I will continue to freeze your mouth. I will keep drilling your teeth, causing you pain and at some point I will fix the problem, but not today. I will just keep on giving you the pain".

The finance minister could be called Doctor Doolittle. I would say that Canada does have a major toothache. It is called the Liberal Party of Canada. It will not get to the root of the problem and that is something which will cause pain to Canadians for years to come.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Hamilton—Wentworth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated my colleague's remarks. However, I was surprised that in congratulating the Minister of Finance for improving the opportunities for charitable donations, given the interests of his party, he did not make some remark with respect to the fact that charitable organizations need to be brought to a level of accountability and a level of competent management and openness which would justify the type of hand that the Minister of Finance is extending to them. As a Liberal member, bringing this level of accountability to the charitable sector is very near and dear to my heart.

I would ask the member if he would support me in that type of effort. This is the kind of suggestion that was made by the Minister of Finance and something we hope to see in the future.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his comments on the question of charitable organizations. I have heard the member make presentations in committee and elsewhere about his desire for accountability in charitable organizations. I know he would agree with me that the huge majority of charitable organizations run a clean ship with good operations, that they keep the books well and are accountable, sometimes within their own organizations, for the money they raise and how they spend it.

I agree with the member. He has brought forward a bill on charitable organizations that specifically asks for the salaries and benefits paid to the public officers of those companies to be made public and to be available to people who are perusing charitable organizations in order to ensure they are accountable. I support him in that and other measures that will allow charitable organizations to prove their worth.

If we are going to expect more from charitable organizations as far as filling the gap left by government services, then I think it only right that we expect accountability. In essence these are our tax dollars, deferred dollars that are given out in that manner. I do not think most charitable organizations are going to be too nervous. It is the ones that are sweating too heavily about not wanting to share what they get paid that need to be careful not to destroy the goodwill they are trying to build.

I would urge him to continue that fight. I hope we can find a way to make charitable organizations accountable while maintaining the privacy they deserve, making sure they will not be targeted in some way.

He has some good ideas and I support him in his efforts.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by thanking the member. He complimented our budget more than he criticized it.

In his criticism he said that we must address the debt problem and I agree. His party continues to refer to Alberta and Mr. Klein. I am very happy they have their finances in order. Mr. Klein has indicated that he has taken care of the deficit and will now take care of the debt. That is the direction we are headed in. As our borrowing needs decline steeply we will be in a position to attack the debt as well. Unless he has another alternative, at least this Doctor Doolittle is doing something. Maybe Doctor Do Nothing could improve on it.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know what my nickname might be if I were finance minister. I could probably think of some choice ones.

Everyone knows we cannot reduce the debt until we balance the budget. That is why we have been begging the finance minister to show us a balanced budget. If we could have a balanced budget sometime in this millennium, we could assure investors, taxpayers, people on fixed incomes, people in the health care system and elsewhere that we will be able to sustain social programs, offer tax relief, that we will be able to offer some light at the end of the tunnel. Until we balance the books none of it is possible.

Alberta has a wonderful problem. Does it spend more money on the social welfare program? Does it retire some more debt? Does it lower taxes? None of this is going to be in the cards ever in the life of this Parliament until we balance the yearly deficit. That is why there is such emphasis on it from this party. We want to preserve the things that Canadians are demanding and offer them some hope for the future.

[John Cummins, Reform, Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will start by acknowledging that the government appears on target with its deficit reduction program, which simply goes to show that if we set the bar low enough we should at least be able to crawl over it.

The low targets set by the finance minister mean that our debt load is still increasing at a troubling rate. It will hit $602.7 billion or 74.8 per cent of gross domestic product in 1996-97. This federal debt is one of the main culprits responsible for our ever increasing tax bill.

To put it another way, the total tax bite has grown from 29.5 per cent of the gross domestic product in 1980 to 35.8 per cent of gross domestic product in 1994, a full 21.5 per cent increase. This growing tax bill directly impacts on our ability to maintain our commitments to Canadians.

In the last election Reform's zero in three budget proposal called for the tax back of pension benefits to seniors to kick in if total family income exceeded $54,000. For this we were accused of attacking the poor. In this budget some single seniors and couples with total incomes between $40,000 and $45,000 will receive lower benefits and all seniors with incomes above $45,000 will receive lower benefits. In my part of the world with its high cost of living, $45,000 is not a high family income.

The finance minister talked with some pride about cuts to department spending. Budget documents tell me that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans budget has been cut by about 20 per cent. A cut of 20 per cent may be reasonable. It may be the monetary target the minister is hoping to achieve, but is it allowing for the protection of the resource?

DFO bureaucrats, like all bureaucrats, will maintain the bureaucracy at all costs. All the fish can be gone, but the bureaucracy will remain to prepare for the fishery of the future, I suppose, or at least that seems to be the drill on the east coast.

Over the past 20 years we have witnessed a tremendous growth in the DFO bureaucracy on the west coast, while the number of staff who deal directly with fish and people have declined. Programs which impact fish have been cancelled.

In the estimates which were delivered today it shows fisheries operations 1995-96 to decreased from $422 million to $295 million. That is in large part where services are delivered, the account from which services are paid. At the same time corporate policy and program support, largely bureaucratic in nature, increases from $247 million to $273 million.

I have a letter from Don Roberts, chairman of the Nanaimo branch of the Pacific Trollers Association. Trollers are hook and line fishermen. They bring in a premium product from the high seas for which they can receive $4 and $5 a pound. The government has seen fit to take fish normally caught by trollers and give it to others who catch these fish in river fisheries and are lucky to get $1 a pound. But that is a story for another day.

Today Don's letter deals with the potential closure of the Nanaimo River salmon hatchery. I will read part of his letter. It states:

Today this hatchery produces 700,000 chinook fry, 450,000 coho fry and up to 1,000,000 chum fry annually. This is a far cry from the less than 100,000 chinook and coho produced when the hatchery opened its doors in 1979. The adult salmon from these releases form an important part of our local fisheries, as well as playing a major role in the rebuilding of seriously depleted lower Georgia Strait chinook stocks.

Several years ago the Pacific Salmon Commission identified lower Georgia Strait chinook as being a stock of extreme concern and made them a priority of the chinook rebuilding program embodied in the Pacific Salmon Treaty. The Nanaimo River, along with a few other systems, were recognized as major contributors to this stock and essential to the rebuilding program. As a result, the Nanaimo River hatchery received additional funding for hatchery expansion to accommodate a substantial increase in chinook production. Now that this capacity has been realized, it is shocking to discover that Nanaimo is one of the hatcheries being considered for closure to meet arbitrary budget cuts.

Mr. Roberts goes on and he notes that one of the strengths of the Nanaimo River hatchery as it is linked to the community:

Over the years DFO funding has been complemented by financial, material and sweat contributions from numerous sources. The hatchery has earned the respect and support of the central island area. Some of the hatchery supporters are the: Community Futures Development Corporation of Central Island, city of Nanaimo, Nanaimo Fish and Game Club, Pacific Salmon Foundation, Pacific Trollers Association, School District No. 68, United Fishermen and Allied Workers, Nanaimo Harbour Commission, Harmac Pacific, B.C. Federation of Wildlife, MacMillan Bloedel, Nanaimo First Nations, Nanaimo Kiwanis Club and Gulf Trollers Association.

These groups represent thousands of hours of volunteer labour. In reality, DFO merely provides the seed money which provides a focus for these community groups that have a keen interest in preserving B.C.'s fishery resource. The Nanaimo hatchery is not alone when it comes to attracting volunteers. This community's spirit is evident at most, if not all, hatchery sites in B.C.

There are other irresponsible cuts which save bureaucrats' jobs but threaten the fishery resource. The minister claims to have met his target but the result is the real job of the department is not getting done.

I have here enforcement reports from the department received under access to information which support my contention. Enforcement officers in the field want the job done but cannot do it due to the lack of resources and personnel.

Problem dated June 18, 1995 in the north coast division; staffing levels are at a critical level in the conservation and protection sector on the north coast. If we want to address enforcement programs on the north coast we need to address our staffing issues.

Problem dated June 1995 at the Somass River; DFO staff levels are too low to monitor the fishery. The real problem will be the outside catches. It will be totally unmonitored.

Problem dated March 4, 1996, Vancouver Island, a patrol ship's summary. August 26-29, complaints about sportees, staff unavailable. No patrols.

Problem at Terrace, B.C., incident report. A summary for Kitimat area dated December 15, 1995; for this timeframe activities were sporadic due to changing staff and new officers. The full time officer worked alone for the most part until his departure in early August. During this period boat patrols were few and far between, making DFO's presence almost non-existent.

Problem dated July 17, 1995, south coast division; numerous rumours of double limits being taken. Not investigated due to overtime constraints. Major closures throughout the Victoria field district. Cause for concern is lack of available officers and resulted in no shellfish patrols being conducted.

Problem dated August 28, 1995, south coast division; troller fishery largely unmonitored due to staff commitments in Area 20. Poaching on river systems not patrolled due to lack of staff.

Problem, Victoria district update, period ending September 4, 1995. No staff available to patrol Cowichan River, Gold Stream River and Sooke River.

I am all for slim government but I cannot support the mindless trashing of a department with a constitutionally mandated obligation to protect our fisheries resource. I cannot support mindless cuts to health care, education and social programs.

Departmental spending cuts are a necessary objective, but simply meeting the target is not enough. The government must ensure essential departmental objectives are not undermined by wrong headed cuts.

[Gar Knutson, Liberal, Elgin—Norfolk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to address my comments, not so much to the details of my Reform colleague's speech as I thought he put a good argument forward, but more or less to the main message, that we need to cut faster, cut deeper and get to a balanced budget quicker.

Reform Party members do a good job in identifying the costs of carrying a heavy deficit and a heavy debt. Unfortunately I do not think they do a bit in terms of identifying the costs of the cuts themselves.

They use Alberta as an example of a government that has done a good job in getting its finances in order. They have failed to point out that in Alberta, for example, the rise of children coming into care with the Children's Aid Society has risen by 21 per cent since Premier Klein started to cut provincial spending. Why is that? Poor people. Their abuse rates did not go up but people simply could not afford to keep their children. Is that the Canada we want to live in?

In my province of Ontario, Michael Harris has cut welfare payments on the theory that it would encourage people to find work. When I checked with municipal officials after the welfare cuts, they were telling me that all it has done is force people to choose between feeding their children and paying their rent. Now they are being forced to move and live on the streets.

[John Cummins, Reform, Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the statement because it is not much of a question.

The fact is that cuts can be made to bureaucratic overburden but the delivery of services must be preserved. We have maintained all along that we must try to make government lean and mean but efficient. That is the key word. We must continue to provide the services required.

I tried to point out in my speech that while the cuts are being made, they are being made to the delivery of a service and the bureaucratic overburden remains intact. When one does that to a resource like the fisheries resource, which is a constitutionally mandated responsibility of the government, then the fisheries resource will disappear and our ability to continue paying for the kinds of services we want is going to go out the window with the fish. That is the problem.

We must find a way to cut but we must do it wisely and smartly. Let us not just look at the bottom line and say: "I will cut to the bottom line and if I achieve my bottom line I am fine". It is not just the bottom line that counts. It is what is done with the money that is left. That is where the government has fallen flat on its face with regard to the fisheries resource. It is not doing its job of managing the money it has.

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Secretary of State (Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec)]

Mr. Speaker, I am particularly pleased today to rise first as the member for the riding

of Outremont, but also as the secretary of state responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development in Quebec.

I am proud to speak on the third budget of the Minister of Finance, a budget that now allows Canadians as a whole to have hope for the future and to also understand that, when we act together in partnership, when we work together as Canadians, we can accomplish extraordinary things.

When we took office in 1993, the fiscal situation of the country was disastrous. There was no vision for the machinery of government. Management of social programs also was obsolete. But despite that reality and despite the cries of Canadians for reforms, the government of the time refused to go forward, with the result that we inherited in 1993 a less than enviable situation, as Canadians, but also less than enviable when we looked at the issue of the debt and the deficit in terms of the G-7.

Basically, the three budgets of the Minister of Finance revolved around cornerstones and these cornerstones were major reforms. Once again, the budget that was tabled yesterday is a budget that continues in the same direction, a budget that revolves around four main elements.

First, we talk about the fiscal future, about making sure that we can have a better and prosperous future, that we can have a country that is fiscally healthy and that compares favourably with G-7 countries as a whole.

The second element is the role of the government. Again, the Minister of Finance is continuing the major reform of the machinery of government. The third element is making sure that we, as Canadians, who built this country, who based this country on principles and values, can continue to have social programs that meet our expectations and our needs.

The last element is investment in the future, the new generation and the leading sectors, an investment that will build on the progress that has been made on the economic front since this responsible government came to power in 1993.

I am happy to address this House because the budget is fair, it shows some vision and proves that the government reached its objectives on all levels.

We have talked and talked about the red book, but today, I think we can come to this House with a remarkable balance sheet showing real achievements, particularly on the fiscal front.

It will be remembered that we had talked about a deficit at 3 per cent of the GDP. It is now a reality because the deficit is roughly $24 billion, and that is 3 per cent of the GDP. Now we are looking forward to a 2 per cent deficit for 1997-98.

Also, there are no tax increases in this budget. As we reach our objectives of deficit reduction, this budget will make all of us Canadians and Quebecers proud, and much less dependent on foreign loans than we were before.

This budget shows that the government did its best to generate economic activity that would lead to job creation. More than half a million jobs have been created since 1993, and I think we must do even better than that. The budget gives every indication that we will be able to create more jobs in partnership with all stakeholders in the communities and the private sector.

The second element is the role of the government. As you know, we have launched a large operation which will make all government actions more equitable in the sense that programs will be better targeted.

The results speak for themselves. Take the Federal Office of Regional Development for example. Before, it administered some forty different programs, but now there is only one single program, developed and refined in co-operation with business people and much more in tune with their needs and expectations.

With this budget, we are showing that we keep on rethinking the role of the state; for instance, in the area of food inspection, we announced that we were going to better coordinate activities within the national context. With regard to the way we offer services to people, we are creating a special agency called the Parks Canada Agency.

All these measures are aimed at ensuring that the government, even though it is more streamlined, and less costly for the people as a whole, is going to keep on offering them top quality services.

With regard to social programs, the Liberal Party is the political party which provided Canada with a social system, a social safety net which is the envy of the rest of the world. Once again, I am proud to say in this House that the Liberal Party is the one which proved able to meet the true challenges by rethinking the social safety net for the long term, in order to provide security to those who will grow up in this country, to offer people in the 1990s a safety net meeting their expectations, and to ensure that our country is ready for the next century.

We spoke about the famous Canada social transfer. The Minister of Finance announced that, in fact, we now had put in place a five-year plan under which we are stabilizing transfers to the provinces and which makes sure that there is a progression in the transfers to the provinces. It is so true that in its budget forecasts the government of Quebec underestimated these transfers. The transfers that we are going to make are more generous by far than what was expected by the province of Quebec.

There is another issue which, I think, is important because the choices we made in the budget reflect not only the values of Canadian society, but also the principles that we stand for and that we have to defend as Liberals, as militants in a party which has always been generous, has always been able to take up challenges, and I am referring to the equalization question.

You know, many provinces, including Quebec, benefit from equalization payments. The Minister of Finance announced that we are going to continue to pay these sums of money and even increase them. So it is an important element, something like the cornerstone of the values that we share as a society.

Another thing also which shows the vision of the government, which is realistic, which proves that we have a greater vision for the future of our country, is the pension reform. We have announced a reform which will be discussed during the upcoming months and under which 80 per cent of Quebecers will be able to receive the same or greater benefits. The majority of women will benefit from this reform.

Concerning the last item, which is the issue of investing in the future, we, as a government, have made choices that are aimed at creating a prosperous economic net, a viable economic net that will generate jobs, and choices that will ensure our businesses will be able to compete in the era of free trade that we live in and also be able to boldly face, with pride and ability, this era of global markets.

We have centred our action on the economic front on young people, and also on high technology and international trade.

As for young people, we, as the federal government, took action that will show the way. We will double for 1996-97 summer jobs available to students. We also made a considerable financial contribution of $315 million over three years, to ensure that we can take action in a more focussed way to respond to different problems facing young people everywhere in Canada.

We are all familiar with the famous vicious circle: no experience, no job; no job, no experience. Through partnerships with the private sector and by making certain investments, the government will ensure that the next generations can face the future with confidence because steady jobs with a promising future will be available.

High technology is another aspect, as it is essential to Quebec and also to Montreal. As the minister responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development, I must say that I am quite pleased with the announcements made by the Minister of Finance, particularly as regards the creation of Technology Partnerships Canada, which should be announced shortly by my hon. colleague from Industry Canada. Under this program, $150 million will be invested in 1996-97, and another $250 million in 1997-98, to support the high technology industry. This is excellent news for greater Montreal, considering how dynamic Montreal's economy is in that area. Just think of aircraft manufacturing, pharmaceuticals and the whole environmental issue, which is so close to the heart of the mayor of Montreal, whom we were fortunate enough to meet recently.

In a sense, this budget is a convenient lifeline for Montreal's economy, whose expectations it meets to a T.

The budget also talks about small business. Because regional development goes hand in hand with assistance to small and medium size businesses. As I mentioned on a number of occasions, and I like repeating from time to time, 85 p. cent of all jobs created in Canada are created by small business. The private sector made it clear that they wanted us to set up partnerships with financial institutions, so that additional sources of financing could be made available to high tech businesses. Well, $50 million will be injected into the Business Development Bank, also providing SMBs easier access to sources of financing.

This it what it means to be able to recognize one's role as government, to take action in an intelligent and enlightened way in the interest of the SMBs that are growing in every region in Canada.

There are also tremendous efforts being made on the information highway. I am referring of course to the famous program to connect numerous schools throughout Canada to the information highway.

There is also the famous program to connect all rural communities to the information highway, and we are also seeking a way to connect Canadian SMBs as a whole to that highway. We all know that we are extremely lucky, in the present situation, to enjoy such access, given that we must now compete not only locally, regionally or nationally, but also internationally.

Being in charge of the Federal Office of Regional Development, I was proud, because nowadays, when one hears about SMBs, when one hears of developing markets for the SMBs, one knows that 80 per cent of all new jobs in SMBs are associated with international markets. So, it is important for our businesses gain international recognition and to be competitive, internationally. In that regard, we must praise the finance minister's decision to provide an extra $50 million to the Export Development Corporation, to enable it to study market development opportunities, as well as opportunities to export and gain access to international markets.

That is quite a number of concrete measures and programs which show that the budget is beneficial to small and medium size businesses, while also maintaining the government's objective of creating a stimulating environment to help our economy thrive.

Here is another measure which shows that we also do something for our regions. Let us take only one example: the possibility, as regards mining flow-through shares, of spreading exploration activities over time. Again, this shows that the government is very sensitive to the needs of the regions. These needs may, in turn, generate various types of research, the establishment of new businesses and, ultimately, jobs.

In conclusion, I think that we have eloquently shown that our Liberal government can maintain a balance in the fulfilment of its responsibilities. We can really tackle the debt and the deficit, while continuing to fulfil our obligations toward Canadians and new generations, and also promoting economic development. I am proud to say that, with the Minister of Finance's third budget, Quebecers and Canadians can now have great confidence in the future.